From -8442369446574766688 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,68893a751f6881d X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Heinz Kohl Subject: Re Matt Austern: .. about C++ .. all is pretty! Date: 1997/08/01 Message-ID: <33E1EDC9.4BC8@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 261438164 References: <01bc9345$1d940e40$d09eaec7@paul> <33D49F29.61ED@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> <33D60D3F.167E@wizard.net> <33DC809A.1FC2@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> X-Original-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 16:08:09 +0200 Originator: austern@isolde.mti.sgi.com Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBVAwUBM+JtXEy4NqrwXLNJAQEB3QIAvz/QVl+LGOFoUEZRY+A9jLmEEaHD2bVu jjtElK5ixH8MMxxB1P54IFcPiDq6De+U6+JTTW1aRNJx79wwVC+yog== =mqln Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Matt Austern wrote: > > That's not true. The lifetime of temporary objects is not > implementation defined, it is standardized. It's described in section > 12.2 of the draft C++ standard. > --- I really hope, the biggest bugs will disappear with the standard. Looking at the draft at a glance, this seems to be the case in this topic. But as you say, up to now there's only a draft, not a standard. But anyway, it's nice to see a problem disappearing in near future (lets guess: anno Domini 2000), which took me some month of work in the past. But today i've fallen into a one of the usual silly pitfalls in C++: typedef char x[40]; .. class z ..{ x y; z(x p) { y = p; .. } .. } Do you see it? Naturally, y and p are totally incompatible, compiler resignes at this point. Up to now I've seen 4 C++-compilers. And all of them had the typical random looking errorness that seems to be unavoidable for all bigger C++ programs, like: - procedure parameter strictly pointing to the start of the memory cluster, not to the variable - 'forgotten' procedure call (it took a half day for verification and a half day for changing the program without changing the semantics until it disappeared) and so on and so on. None of this errors I've seen twice. I think, there's no really hard tested feature of a C++ compiler, that may not fail sporadic and without any reasonable cause. The experienced C++ programmer I know said, it tooks him 50% of the testing time to cope with compiler errors (the code warrior C++ compiler he's now using seems to be much better). Other weaknesses seems to be typical for all the modern software: e.g. misleading error messages up to 'internal compiler error' (the cause for the latter may be paging file exhausted) Do you think, it will be possible to change C++ till working like an ordinary computer language? Let's really hope, the standard will do this job. (kohl@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de) --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]